User talk:Golbez

Weird, old case...

Can you check into the block at User talk:Vitalevent. Its from March, 2007. I know, long time ago, right? But I don't see what led to the block, the only edits seem to be good. Still, it was almost 5 years ago, so I'm not quite sure how to respond. Since it was your block, I thought I'd ping you. --Jayron32 05:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was oversighted or something like that? Removed completely from the database. FTR, its all been made moot as checkuser jpgordon has confirmed this was a sockpuppet. Not sure of who, but there ya go... --Jayron32 05:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nm. It was Grawp. Probably why you can't read the stuff that you reverted; it was probably something that got permanently removed. --Jayron32 05:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11

So why exactly do you not think 15% is notable?LIbertyInSpace (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This user Bbb23 is vandalizing the wickipidia page of Adriana Ferreyr. He has taken off a number of reliable references one by one and then put the page up for deletion for a lack of referenceces. He has also deleted the talk page that an administrator have created for discussion of the page. Best, Jane. — by Jane77765 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane77765 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect revertion

Dear Golbez. I kindly ask you to pay attention. This user has made irrelevant deletion of edits that has been cited by third-party investigator. I am afraid that if I begin to go against this user this will end up in edit war. Can you please enforce user to respect Wikipedia rule that third-party neutral and verified source has a right to appear in the relevant articles? Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. Apart from being very poorly written, I don't see why it's in this overview article on the region. Want it in the article on the war, or a battle? That might work. But focusing on two rapes, when there were people being killed? Unless you have a source saying those rapes were directly responsible for the war that began two days later - as responsible as the declaration of transfer to the Armenian SSR - then they might have a place, but as it is that seems to be completely out of place and adds nothing to the article. I strongly suggest you don't get into an edit war over this sentence, this is not the hill you want to die on. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think anyone, who is related to this region or knows this region very closely, will acknowledge that the reason for people's march towards Khankendi was to take revenge for raping. Apparently, the girls have been raped by the people of different ethnic group, and this raised anger and frustration among Azerbaijanis. You are in full knowledge that village people from Aghdam would not march towards Khankendi just to stand-off against NKAO parliament's intended declaration, just because those people were very far from those political confrontations between Yerevan, Baku, Khankendi and Moscow. The direct reason of the rally was to take revenge for the raped girls. Also, if you think that the sentence is poorly written, then you are more than welcome to edit that in order to raise the quality. As you mentioned, I think it is OK if I publish this fact in page Nagorno-Karabakh War. Thank you for your attention. --Verman1 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)